What is the most devastating moment in the band's career?

[Cam Mott]

I just said I feel sorry for him.  I suggest those interested go to the link Nicko1234 provided and read the whole document.

"But on the whole post-1998 fall-out/lawsuit/trademark think, Al was, at absolute worst, poorly advised and didn't seek out better counsel (legal and otherwise)." 

Sure. Let's blame it on somebody else.

[filledeplage]

The issue of Al and the licence is all pretty well explained here again for anyone who hasn`t seen it.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html

The key finding:

`Jardine's promotional materials display “The Beach Boys” more prominently and boldly than “Family and Friends,” suggesting sponsorship by the Beach Boys. Cf. Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Prods., Inc., 236 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir.2000) (reasoning that promotional materials reduced likelihood of confusion by minimizing references to trademarked name “Steppenwolf”).   Also, there is evidence that Jardine uses “The Beach Boys” trademark to suggest that his band is in fact sponsored by the Beach Boys, as Jardine's management testified that they recommended including the trademark “The Beach Boys” in the name of Jardine's band in order to create or enhance marquee value.   Finally, Jardine's use of the trademark caused actual consumer confusion, as both event organizers that booked Jardine's band and people who attended Jardine's shows submitted declarations expressing confusion about who was performing. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html#sthash.HmtTDIGF.dpuf`

That is the (correct) legal explanation for why (duh) one can't use a trademark without permission.

The court rulings, while providing an occasional inadvertent insight, do not however get into any of the background of how Al ended up in the position he was in in the first place, nor does it provide any insight into the inner-workings of their corporation. Nor should it, of course.

But when we're talking about anything beyond the fact that Al wasn't cleared to use the BB trademark within his own band's name, it goes far beyond court rulings into all of that corporate murk that we'll probably never fully understand.

Al appears to have sought out a lot of wonky advice. (Let us not forget at one point he sued one of his lawyers for malpractice in the 2000's).

But people like Cam over the last 16-17 YEARS! have continued to paint a picture of malice on the part of Al, and that's where all credibility is lost with me. A guy so marginalized, so impotent within the group power structure, who was essentially phased out of the group unwillingly in 97/98 (see the David Marks book for more on that; yes, Howie's right, he was essentially s***canned), and continued to be harangued as his bookings dwindled in the 2000's to the odd Pork Rind Festival here and there, for him to be painted as the big bad guy is laughably ridiculous and ignorant as to how the band is known to function, not to mention common sense.

It doesn't mean Al has never been an a-hole or a pain in the ass over the years (same goes for all of them). Unlike a few Mike defenders, I'm fine acknowledging unequivocally negative things about Al (or whoever).

But on the whole post-1998 fall-out/lawsuit/trademark think, Al was, at absolute worst, poorly advised and didn't seek out better counsel (legal and otherwise). But it's a tragic thing really, not a case of him being greedy or evil or villainous.  

Hey Jude - that case summary kindly provided by Nicko 1234 should provide lots of contemporaneous info. The background section provides the history and the terms, which generally called for a list of "conditions precedent" prior to touring. Monies to be paid, agents and managers to be used.  It wasn't based on personalities, but conditions to be fulfilled to get the license. Second was the trademark issue and marketplace confusion.

"By 1998, Carl Wilson had died, Love and Jardine no longer wanted to tour together and, Brian Wilson didn't want to tour at all." Sentence 4, Paragraph 2, under Background.

The court was specific. Please don't muddy the waters. Why would you expect the "inner workings" of the company to be fodder for discussion?

The BRI corp. discusses, votes and that is it.  It was contract language that had to be fulfilled.  Our opinion is of no consequence.

And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else.  He is a great singer and BB. But the court found that the use of the name, and not using the prescribed agents and managers didn't conform to what BRI wanted. The court didn't allow him to tour "as The BB Family and Friends," but, he could still "refer to his past membership in the band 'in a descriptive fashion.'"

Please don't create a fairy tale here.   

[Smilin Ed H]

Murry's death, Dennis' death, Carl's death.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - that case summary kindly provided by Nicko 1234 should provide lots of contemporaneous info. The background section provides the history and the terms, which generally called for a list of "conditions precedent" prior to touring. Monies to be paid, agents and managers to be used.  It wasn't based on personalities, but conditions to be fulfilled to get the license. Second was the trademark issue and marketplace confusion.

"By 1998, Carl Wilson had died, Love and Jardine no longer wanted to tour together and, Brian Wilson didn't want to tour at all." Sentence 4, Paragraph 2, under Background.

The court was specific. Please don't muddy the waters. Why would you expect the "inner workings" of the company to be fodder for discussion?

The BRI corp. discusses, votes and that is it.  It was contract language that had to be fulfilled.  Our opinion is of no consequence.

And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else.  He is a great singer and BB. But the court found that the use of the name, and not using the prescribed agents and managers didn't conform to what BRI wanted. The court didn't allow him to tour "as The BB Family and Friends," but, he could still "refer to his past membership in the band 'in a descriptive fashion.'"

Please don't create a fairy tale here.  

I don't think you're familiar with Cam's 16-plus-year history of speaking on the matter.

When I was thinking of a *long-term* pattern of language and statements that were laughably inflammatory as it pertains to Al, I was probably thinking about posts like these:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2550.msg48918.html#msg48918

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2550.msg48967.html#msg48967

These sort of posts go *far* beyond simply pointing out that Al lost a lawsuit. Do you support the characterization of Al "putting hatchets into the backs of his bandmate and (Carl's) heirs", or of Al "screwing" his bandmates?

I will also add that the characterization by the court that "Love and Jardine no longer wanted to tour together" is far from accurate if you choose to believe the Marks/Stebbins book. The court's background information was just that, *background* information. That was my point. The court didn't need to go further into it and talk about how Al was kinda forced out of the group, but kinda didn't want to play with Mike, but maybe he would have if he hadn't been forced out, etc. But if *we're* going to discuss that stuff, then we need more than the court rulings.

At no point in this thread did anyone say "The court was wrong, Al wasn't touring with a trademark he didn't have the right to."

We got, instead, subjective characterizations of greed and the like.

At the end of the day, I enjoy reading and trust Howie Edelson's point of view on this more than yours. That's all.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - that case summary kindly provided by Nicko 1234 should provide lots of contemporaneous info. The background section provides the history and the terms, which generally called for a list of "conditions precedent" prior to touring. Monies to be paid, agents and managers to be used.  It wasn't based on personalities, but conditions to be fulfilled to get the license. Second was the trademark issue and marketplace confusion.

"By 1998, Carl Wilson had died, Love and Jardine no longer wanted to tour together and, Brian Wilson didn't want to tour at all." Sentence 4, Paragraph 2, under Background.

The court was specific. Please don't muddy the waters. Why would you expect the "inner workings" of the company to be fodder for discussion?

The BRI corp. discusses, votes and that is it.  It was contract language that had to be fulfilled.  Our opinion is of no consequence.

And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else.  He is a great singer and BB. But the court found that the use of the name, and not using the prescribed agents and managers didn't conform to what BRI wanted. The court didn't allow him to tour "as The BB Family and Friends," but, he could still "refer to his past membership in the band 'in a descriptive fashion.'"

Please don't create a fairy tale here.  

I don't think you're familiar with Cam's 16-plus-year history of speaking on the matter.

When I was thinking of a *long-term* pattern of language and statements that were laughably inflammatory as it pertains to Al, I was probably thinking about posts like these:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2550.msg48918.html#msg48918

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2550.msg48967.html#msg48967

These sort of posts go *far* beyond simply pointing out that Al lost a lawsuit. Do you support the characterization of Al "putting hatchets into the backs of his bandmate and (Carl's) heirs", or of Al "screwing" his bandmates?

I will also add that the characterization by the court that "Love and Jardine no longer wanted to tour together" is far from accurate if you choose to believe the Marks/Stebbins book. The court's background information was just that, *background* information. That was my point. The court didn't need to go further into it and talk about how Al was kinda forced out of the group, but kinda didn't want to play with Mike, but maybe he would have if he hadn't been forced out, etc. But if *we're* going to discuss that stuff, then we need more than the court rulings.

At no point in this thread did anyone say "The court was wrong, Al wasn't touring with a trademark he didn't have the right to."

We got, instead, subjective characterizations of greed and the like.

At the end of the day, I enjoy and trust Howie Edelson's point of view on this more than yours. That's all.

Hey Jude - I looked at the court decision and compared it to your post.  I didn't look at anything else.   The court had the necessary info to make a decision.  It was "affirmed," on appeal.  That is enough for me.

[HeyJude]

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

[Jim V.]

Man. Reading those posts of Cam's from 2006 really take me back. Sometimes I forget the bullshit he's spewed over the years.

[The 4th Wilson Bro.]

the deaths of Dennis and Carl

Of course, those were two devastating moments, so that really doesn't qualify as a proper answer.

While the death of both Wilson brothers was devastating to family members and fans, Carl Wilson's death absolutely had the most devastating effect on the Beach Boys as a band.  Like another poster (Lonely Summer, maybe) stated in a recent post, the Beach Boys have never really sounded quite like the Beach Boys since that day in early 1998 when Carl was called home.

[Cam Mott]

I like Howie too.

And still I feel sorry for Al.

Please read the whole threads, if you can stand it, not just the cherry picked posts.

[filledeplage]

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

Subjective discussion and a court decision don't mix.  It goes under "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Not everyone reads every thread.  And, I think Al is great.  

I haven't read either mentioned book.  You can rely on anyone's point of view you want.  

This is America!  

The point of the thread was "devastating moments." I listed two; the deaths of Dennis and Carl.

Any disputes that end up in court would not ever come close for me.

[SMiLE Brian]

The new agenda is hiding Mike's actions behind the BRI corporate lingo to shield the true meaning of what he did. He kicked Al from the BBs and made his life miserable even afterwards when AL tried to make a separate band.

[HeyJude]

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

Subjective discussion and a court decision don't mix.  It goes under "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Not everyone reads every thread.  And, I think Al is great.  

I haven't read either mentioned book.  You can rely on anyone's point of view you want.  

This is America!  

The point of the thread was "devastating moments." I listed two; the deaths of Dennis and Carl.

Any disputes that end up in court would not ever come close for me.

Again, *that* was my point: Court rulings and subjective discussion DON'T mix. We were *not* having a discussion about court rulings, but rather decidedly SUBJECTIVE  things like calling Al "greedy." So, to continue to cite the court case as the final say regarding that SUBJECTIVE conversation is, well, entirely missing the point.

I do appreciate letting us know you haven't read Stebbins' *invaluable* David Marks book. I'll weigh posts accordingly now.

[filledeplage]

The new agenda is hiding Mike's actions behind the BRI corporate lingo to shield the true meaning of what he did. He kicked Al from the BBs and made his life miserable even afterwards when AL tried to make a separate band.

And you know Mike has an "agenda?"

How do you know the workings of BRI?

He has a 25% share, as I've read.  That is one of four.

Seriously.  Read the decision.  Line by line.  And I recommend that you read the precedent cases the court based its decision upon.   It is very interesting reading.  You'll learn a lot about the entertainment business.

And, have you ever seen Al's band? I have.  They are great!  

[filledeplage]

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

Subjective discussion and a court decision don't mix.  It goes under "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Not everyone reads every thread.  And, I think Al is great.  

I haven't read either mentioned book.  You can rely on anyone's point of view you want.  

This is America!  

The point of the thread was "devastating moments." I listed two; the deaths of Dennis and Carl.

Any disputes that end up in court would not ever come close for me.

Again, *that* was my point: Court rulings and subjective discussion DON'T mix. We were *not* having a discussion about court rulings, but rather decidedly SUBJECTIVE  things like calling Al "greedy." So, to continue to cite the court case as the final say regarding that SUBJECTIVE conversation is, well, entirely missing the point.

I do appreciate letting us know you haven't read Stebbins' *invaluable* David Marks book. I'll weigh posts accordingly now.

Well, I didn't call anyone greedy.  The discussion is "devastating moments in the band's career." 

[Mike's Beard]

I feel sorry for Al and am glad he's been let back in from the cold, so to speak, but he DID dig his own grave with his exit from the band after Carl's death and the Beach Boys Family & Friends fiasco.

[HeyJude]

I feel sorry for Al and am glad he's been let back in from the cold, so to speak, but he DID dig his own grave with his exit from the band after Carl's death and the Beach Boys Family & Friends fiasco.

I kind of used to think that. I suppose my thinking hasn't changed so much as how I would term things. I'd say Al's main faults were: 1. Being part of allowing the BRI corporate setup (and band attitude) going all the back to the 70's and 80's to develop the way it did; 2. Perhaps being too naïve about what was going on around him (that insane, Spinal Tap-esque moment in the Stebbins/Marks books when Al all of a sudden realizes he hasn't been told someone else has joined the band, is evidence both that he was totally out of the loop, and also evidence (based on what he tells Marks during that face-to-face) that Al knew *exactly* what was going to happen); and 3. Not having better agents/managers/advisors/lawyers that could have either kept the power-shift from happening in the late 90s, and/or could have better advised him how to go about the "Family & Friends" fiasco.

He kind of seemed to to indirectly help dig his own grave, or at least let people setup the grave digging equipment over the years, yes.

But what was put upon him in the late 90's came about because of, in my opinion, a lot of vengefulness and ugliness. He doesn't just f-up what was otherwise a totally perfect thing.

[HeyJude]

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

Subjective discussion and a court decision don't mix.  It goes under "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Not everyone reads every thread.  And, I think Al is great.  

I haven't read either mentioned book.  You can rely on anyone's point of view you want.  

This is America!  

The point of the thread was "devastating moments." I listed two; the deaths of Dennis and Carl.

Any disputes that end up in court would not ever come close for me.

Again, *that* was my point: Court rulings and subjective discussion DON'T mix. We were *not* having a discussion about court rulings, but rather decidedly SUBJECTIVE  things like calling Al "greedy." So, to continue to cite the court case as the final say regarding that SUBJECTIVE conversation is, well, entirely missing the point.

I do appreciate letting us know you haven't read Stebbins' *invaluable* David Marks book. I'll weigh posts accordingly now.

Well, I didn't call anyone greedy.  The discussion is "devastating moments in the band's career."  

A few posts back you said this: "And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else."

But we've had people in fact refer to him as greedy, and a history on the part of a few folks of calling him some pretty inflammatory (and laughably unfounded) things. I suppose my unsolicited advice would be to not suggest that "no one" is saying stuff about Al (implying my suggestion that such things *are* being said is, as you put it a "fairy tale") without knowing the history of some of the posters, especially posters within the thread, who have a history of saying some of this stuff about Al.

[filledeplage]

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

Subjective discussion and a court decision don't mix.  It goes under "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Not everyone reads every thread.  And, I think Al is great.  

I haven't read either mentioned book.  You can rely on anyone's point of view you want.  

This is America!  

The point of the thread was "devastating moments." I listed two; the deaths of Dennis and Carl.

Any disputes that end up in court would not ever come close for me.

Again, *that* was my point: Court rulings and subjective discussion DON'T mix. We were *not* having a discussion about court rulings, but rather decidedly SUBJECTIVE  things like calling Al "greedy." So, to continue to cite the court case as the final say regarding that SUBJECTIVE conversation is, well, entirely missing the point.

I do appreciate letting us know you haven't read Stebbins' *invaluable* David Marks book. I'll weigh posts accordingly now.

Well, I didn't call anyone greedy.  The discussion is "devastating moments in the band's career."  

A few posts back you said this: "And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else."

But we've had people in fact refer to him as greedy, and a history on the part of a few folks of calling him some pretty inflammatory (and laughably unfounded) things. I suppose my unsolicited advice would be to not suggest that "no one" is saying stuff about Al (implying my suggestion that such things *are* being said is, as you put it a "fairy tale") without knowing the history of some of the posters, at least posters with in the thread, who have a history of saying some of this stuff about Al.

Please read the decision. And let that inform your discussion. Not speculation. Or wishful thinking.

[HeyJude]

The new agenda is hiding Mike's actions behind the BRI corporate lingo to shield the true meaning of what he did. He kicked Al from the BBs and made his life miserable even afterwards when AL tried to make a separate band.

And you know Mike has an "agenda?"

How do you know the workings of BRI?

He has a 25% share, as I've read.  That is one of four.

Seriously.  Read the decision.  Line by line.  And I recommend that you read the precedent cases the court based its decision upon.   It is very interesting reading.  You'll learn a lot about the entertainment business.

And, have you ever seen Al's band? I have.  They are great!  

A reading of the court ruling (and other related documents) supports the idea that Al was ill-advised to do most of what he did (not all of it; there was a period of time in 1999 when Al was *not* neccesarily breaking any rules touring as BBFF). But it also is not impossible to read the docs and also come away feeling like Al was also totally f***ed over by some of his fellow shareholders as well, to the letter of the law no less. He did himself no favors along the way. He got himself all full of piss and vinegar about the group's legacy way too late in the game.  

But having read those court docs numerous times over the years, I've always felt like one would have to be kind of a masochist to read all of that and come away with the feeling that Al deserved just what he got, that he was the root of all the problems, etc.

[HeyJude]

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

Subjective discussion and a court decision don't mix.  It goes under "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Not everyone reads every thread.  And, I think Al is great.  

I haven't read either mentioned book.  You can rely on anyone's point of view you want.  

This is America!  

The point of the thread was "devastating moments." I listed two; the deaths of Dennis and Carl.

Any disputes that end up in court would not ever come close for me.

Again, *that* was my point: Court rulings and subjective discussion DON'T mix. We were *not* having a discussion about court rulings, but rather decidedly SUBJECTIVE  things like calling Al "greedy." So, to continue to cite the court case as the final say regarding that SUBJECTIVE conversation is, well, entirely missing the point.

I do appreciate letting us know you haven't read Stebbins' *invaluable* David Marks book. I'll weigh posts accordingly now.

Well, I didn't call anyone greedy.  The discussion is "devastating moments in the band's career."  

A few posts back you said this: "And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else."

But we've had people in fact refer to him as greedy, and a history on the part of a few folks of calling him some pretty inflammatory (and laughably unfounded) things. I suppose my unsolicited advice would be to not suggest that "no one" is saying stuff about Al (implying my suggestion that such things *are* being said is, as you put it a "fairy tale") without knowing the history of some of the posters, at least posters with in the thread, who have a history of saying some of this stuff about Al.

Please read the decision. And let that inform your discussion. Not speculation. Or wishful thinking.

What are you talking about?

Is this the new thing now, to ignore what everybody else is asking or talking about? Or are some posters just seeing a version of the board with random blocks of posts missing?

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts. You made reference to one of my posts citing two books when I only cited one. I've also said NUMEROUS times that I've read the court decision NUMEROUS times, and that this has been an ongoing debate/discussion with Cam for 16-17 years.

[filledeplage]

The new agenda is hiding Mike's actions behind the BRI corporate lingo to shield the true meaning of what he did. He kicked Al from the BBs and made his life miserable even afterwards when AL tried to make a separate band.

And you know Mike has an "agenda?"

How do you know the workings of BRI?

He has a 25% share, as I've read.  That is one of four.

Seriously.  Read the decision.  Line by line.  And I recommend that you read the precedent cases the court based its decision upon.   It is very interesting reading.  You'll learn a lot about the entertainment business.

And, have you ever seen Al's band? I have.  They are great!  

A reading of the court ruling (and other related documents) supports the idea that Al was ill-advised to do most of what he did (not all of it; there was a period of time in 1999 when Al was *not* neccesarily breaking any rules touring as BBFF). But it also is not impossible to read the docs and also come away feeling like Al was also totally f***ed over by some of his fellow shareholders as well, to the letter of the law no less. He did himself no favors along the way. He got himself all full of piss and vinegar about the group's legacy way too late in the game.  

But having read those court docs numerous times over the years, I've always felt like one would have to be kind of a masochist to read all of that and come away with the feeling that Al deserved just what he got, that he was the root of all the problems, etc.

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Who suggests that "Al deserved just what he got?"

It merely appears that the court found that Al didn't adhere to the terms set forth by BRI.  

[filledeplage]

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

Subjective discussion and a court decision don't mix.  It goes under "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Not everyone reads every thread.  And, I think Al is great.  

I haven't read either mentioned book.  You can rely on anyone's point of view you want.  

This is America!  

The point of the thread was "devastating moments." I listed two; the deaths of Dennis and Carl.

Any disputes that end up in court would not ever come close for me.

Again, *that* was my point: Court rulings and subjective discussion DON'T mix. We were *not* having a discussion about court rulings, but rather decidedly SUBJECTIVE  things like calling Al "greedy." So, to continue to cite the court case as the final say regarding that SUBJECTIVE conversation is, well, entirely missing the point.

I do appreciate letting us know you haven't read Stebbins' *invaluable* David Marks book. I'll weigh posts accordingly now.

Well, I didn't call anyone greedy.  The discussion is "devastating moments in the band's career."  

A few posts back you said this: "And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else."

But we've had people in fact refer to him as greedy, and a history on the part of a few folks of calling him some pretty inflammatory (and laughably unfounded) things. I suppose my unsolicited advice would be to not suggest that "no one" is saying stuff about Al (implying my suggestion that such things *are* being said is, as you put it a "fairy tale") without knowing the history of some of the posters, at least posters with in the thread, who have a history of saying some of this stuff about Al.

Please read the decision. And let that inform your discussion. Not speculation. Or wishful thinking.

What are you talking about?

Is this the new thing now, to ignore what everybody else is asking or talking about? Or are some posters just seeing a version of the board with random blocks of posts missing?

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts. You made reference to one of my posts citing two books when I only cited one. I've also said NUMEROUS times that I've read the court decision NUMEROUS times, and that this has been an ongoing debate/discussion with Cam for 16-17 years.

It appears that whatever another person's opposing opinion is a problem.

[HeyJude]

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts.

I didn't say you'd have to be a masochist to simply *read* the document. I said that in reference to a SPECIFIC reaction I've seen a few people have after reading the document.

[HeyJude]

It appears that whatever another person's opposing opinion is a problem.

Sorry, don't understand that whatsoever.

I still have this feeling the posts aren't actually being read.

[filledeplage]

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts.

I didn't say you'd have to be a masochist to simply *read* the document. I said that in reference to a SPECIFIC reaction I've seen a few people have after the document.

Well, I read the case decision.  Any reaction is personal as to each person.  

And yes that was my impression, that your comment created the impression that anyone who would do that kind of reading is a "masochist."

Guilty, as charged.